>Eva lives in dream world. I am not antisemitic and not anti-Jew, but I>don't like if anybody is getting a most favored treatment in history.>In this country I could state, that I am such and such, it is a free>country. But why should I claim something, which I am not? See, I stick>to my beliefs, not like Eva Balogh, who wants to seat on two horses>with one ass!
you are indeed an antisemite. "I don't like if anybody is getting a most
favored treatment in history"? puleeeze, don't make me laugh. the fact that
you cannot recognize what you are in no way excuses your racism. and yes
indeed, you do stick to your beliefs, as odious as they are.
and contrary to your assertions, so does ms. balogh. stick to her beliefs,
i mean. though i may not agree with her on everything, for that i *do*
respect her. i have never seen any evidence that she at all wanted to ride
*your* favorite imaginary steed.
but not you. i have no respect for you at all. your unctuous bullshit (cute
smilies, huh) makes me want to throw up.
regards
ef

At 03:35 PM 8/5/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:
> First of all. Until very recently the post-1945 period couldn't be>really studied because of the documents could not be used. Or rather, a few>people could use them only. The trusted ones. In any case, one couldn't call>this period a legitimate study of history. Second, whatever happened after>1945 was something which was forced on Hungary from the outside. If the>Russians had not been there with their Muscovite Hungarian communists>friends, the "working-class movement" most likely would have been minimal,>although, of course, with the passing of time, agricultural Hungary would>have been more and more industrialized.>> So, in brief: I don't consider the working-class movement of much>importance as a driving force in twentieth-century history.
I don't think your points are valid. The lack of documents does not mean a
lack of history, as I'm sure you know. And, forced or not, the
"working-class movement" is an important part of post-1945 Hungarian history.
If I were to go along with your reasoning, I should conclude that the
"working-class movement" was not an important part of Russian history
either. After all, there were very few unionized workers in Russia in 1917,
and furthermore, Marxism was an imported, foreign philosophy. Since the
overwhelming majority of Russians were not communist, Bolshevik, or
collectivists, I could argue that it was "forced" on them. Would it then be
fair to conclude that the "working-class movement" was not an important
driving force in twentieth century Russian history?
Joe Szalai

********************************************************************
******* WARNING ********
This is a post from Tibor Benke. If you thought my previous posts
bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. Delete this message now !!!
********************************************************************
At 10:37 a.m. 8/2/96, Joe Szalai wrote in response to Eva Balogh:
>At 08:09 AM 8/1/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:>>>At 08:48 AM 8/1/96 EDT, Hugh Agnew wrote:>>>>>By saying this I do not mean to excuse the anti-Semitism of any country,>>>including the history of anti-Semitism in Hungary, but to deny the kind>>>of national narcissism that considers it specifically Hungary-bashing to>>>decry it. It is part of the nation's past, it must be subject to that>>>process of "coming to terms with history" that we all face.>>>> This is exactly what some people refuse to do: "coming to terms with>>history," or looking at ourselves honestly in the face.>>>> Eva Balogh>>If that would be possible, all war and conflict would cease.>>Joe Szalai
Precisely! That is why we must try everything so peace can happen. Getting
rid of people who may harbor anti-semitic or xenophobic or other racist
feelings, however, is unlikely to work any more then Uncle Adolf's plan for
the "final solution" did. We need to gain an understanding of why people
feel this way in order to be able to persuade them to stop it, and failing
that, to at least, not act on their feelings. I suspect this to be no easy
task, because, like many modern diseases, this also cannot be traced to a
single cause. (Though testosterone poisioning is an interesting candidate
;-))
However, a great Hungarian Jewish student of Freud, Wilhelm Reich, wrote
the _The Mass Psychology of Fascism_, which I think makes a good beginning.
It was also the first work pruporting to be 'scientific' to be banned in
the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Which is why, I believe in
unlimited free speech.
Those wishing to delve deeper, might examine the literature on the
following topics: messianism, revitalization movements, relative
deprivation, as well as on Marcus Garvey. I myself have written an essay,
which is tangentally revelant to the topic and which is in a "Word" file I
can provide on request. The title is _Maroons in Babylon: Notes Toward
Understanding Rastafari_. It is about a movement of patriotic Jamaicans
known as Rastafarians.
On the FORUM, I once introduced myself as the Construction Worker's Helper
on the Tower of Babel (on the day the tounges were confused). I think we
are living in a time not unlike that. Which is why the word 'Nazi' cannot
be usefully defined; its semantic content being variable by location:
geographic, cultural, historical and social, not to mention, mythical.
Speaking of which, in my capacity, as the above mentioned figure (i.e. The
Construction Worker's Assistant), I send a message to NPA.
Confusing history with Mythology is a *grave* error. The latter is far
more reliable. Each instance of the former is but a seed compared to a
full grown plant. Further,the harmful consequences of trying to retell
myths badly, without due consideration for structure and more esoteric
criteria, or worse yet, as history, can result in extreeme misfortune to
the teller. Being fired is small potatoes.
For one thing, denying the Jewishness of Jesus, ruins the meaning of
Christianity. With the Jewish element removed, the meaning of the concepts
of 'ressurection' and 'salvation' or 'forgiveness' is lost and one is left
with merely more or less wise advice. Though I am not a Christian, (as
Russell wasn't) I do not even dare deny Jesus' divinity, let alone his
being the son of David.
Whether someone is a Nazi or not in cybespace is pretty unimportant. For
all I know from where I am sitting, the entire list is composed of C.I.A.,
K.G.B. and other agents including supernatural ones. As I have said
before: "They don't call it 'The Net' for nothin'". (Now Class! please
read both _1984_ and _Brave New World_ and decide if Orwell or Huxley came
closer to the truth. [Hint: 'both and' is an option.] Justify your
answer. Bonus points for clever allusions to any part of the Bible.
Papers due before Xmas.)
On the other hand, I've often been mistaken for a Jew myself (I like to
dress 'Plain' and wear a beard and when I was a palletizer at Dominion
Glass, my fellow workers often called me "Rabbi". One time at the SFU
campus, a man who seemed like a Lubovicher, put his hand on my shoulder,
looked me in the eye and asked me if I were Jewish? -- I gave him my
regrets and he sympathized.). And even if, that weren't true, as a
"differently abled" person, I and my family would have preceded Jews to the
gas chambers in Uncle Adolf's day. As it was, my Granfather spent six
months in detention before the end of the war for hiding people and had he
not been a respected country lawyer, he might have fared worse.
Well, so much for rambling, folks.
I remain respectfully,
The Hairy Hermit of Burnaby. (aka Tibor Benke)
P.S.
And those of you who believe in anything Divine at all, should think on
this: If God is truly omnipotent, then all people are chosen, for what
they are chosen is another matter. What did Uncle Friedrich N. mean when
he declared God dead?

At 06:52 AM 8/6/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>I don't think your points are valid [about the importance of working-class
movement in modern Hungarian history]. The lack of documents does not mean a
>lack of history, as I'm sure you know.
And, as I'm sure you know, the word 'history' has two meanings (1)
history as passing of time; and (2) history as writings on history. I meant
the second. No proper historical research can be conducted without
documents. Government documents, under the best of circumstances, are
available only twenty-five years after the events. In the worst scenario
even eighteenth-century documents are unavailable. See the Soviet Union
where a colleague of mine who was working on Lithuanian history couldn't get
to diplomatic documents of Catherine the Great's era. Or, as an interesting
footnote, Gyula Horn wants Hungarian documents relating to internal
intelligence be closed for 90(!!!) years.
>And, forced or not, the>"working-class movement" is an important part of post-1945 Hungarian history.
Why, because a foreign power with the help of their native
underlings in the name of the proletariat forced a totalitarian dictatorship
(which had absolutely nothing to do with the proletarian dictatorship of
Marx's ideas) on an agricultural country? Do you call this a genuine,
grassroot working-class movement a la, the British or the German?
>If I were to go along with your reasoning, I should conclude that the>"working-class movement" was not an important part of Russian history>either.
No, it wasn't. Everything I said above applies to Soviet
Russia/Soviet Union except it wasn't forced on them from abroad but from a
small group of conspiratorial professional revolutionaries.
>After all, there were very few unionized workers in Russia in 1917,>and furthermore, Marxism was an imported, foreign philosophy.
Don't make the mistake of equating Marxism with Leninism. The
Russian variety of Marxism was in many ways a homegrown movement.
>Since the>overwhelming majority of Russians were not communist, Bolshevik, or>collectivists, I could argue that it was "forced" on them. Would it then be>fair to conclude that the "working-class movement" was not an important>driving force in twentieth century Russian history?
I'm afraid that is correct. What was done in the name of the
proletariat in Russia and later in the satellite countries had absolutely
nothing to do with Western European "working-class movement" of the
nineteenth-century.
Eva Balogh

It would be interesting to look at the labour movements
in 1956. It's a nice piece of history, not only in
Hungary, but in Poland also. (In Poland communists
shot at the demonstrating workers in 1956 and 1970, and
the role of the labour movement in 1980-81 is pretty
well demonstrated. Just think of Lech Walesa and the
Solidarnosc.) In Hungary Racz Sandor and the Workers
Councils played a considerable role in 1956.
Sz.Zoli

At 10:40 AM 8/6/96 -0400, Zoli Szekely wrote:
>It would be interesting to look at the labour movements>in 1956. It's a nice piece of history, not only in>Hungary, but in Poland also. (In Poland communists>shot at the demonstrating workers in 1956 and 1970, and>the role of the labour movement in 1980-81 is pretty>well demonstrated. Just think of Lech Walesa and the>Solidarnosc.) In Hungary Racz Sandor and the Workers>Councils played a considerable role in 1956.
That, on the other hand, is correct. And, by the way, the
working-class movement in Poland was much stronger historically than in Hungary
.
The Workers Councils in 1956 were very, very important.
Eva Balogh

>At 12:44 PM 8/5/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:>>>I'm in favour of bilingual signs. Official bilingualism acknowledges that>>Canada is not just an English speaking nation. It also sets Canadians apart>>from that 'Great Satan' to the south.>> And what will happen when at the next referendum the people of>Quebec will vote to leave Canada. Does this mean that Canada then will be>indistinguishable from the "Great Satan" to the south?>> Eva Balogh>>Eva:lets hope that does not happen.You know us quite well,we would like the
Quebec people to stay in Cana da.Unfortunatly there are always politicians
who for there own purpose would do harm to this Country.I hope with the
majority of canadians Quebecers will stay,and we don't have to be more
americanised.
Sincerely Andy.

>In article >, Andy Kozma> writes:>>>Lucky for us we have CBC wich is>>less nationalistic as most of us are in Canada.>>This statement may or may not be true. Given your anti-American statements>on here in the recent past, I'm led to believe that in your particular>case, it isn't true. Luckily for Canadians and those of us mean,>imperialistic Americans who like Canada, Canadians and things Canadian in>general, the CBC is able to rise above your level of petty hatred. We're>still going to water down your beer and make you eat real bacon when we>take over, Andy.>Sam Stowe>>P.S. -- Please stop apologizing for your spelling and grammar. It doesn't>offend me or make me think any less of you. I usually agree with what you>have to offer. But this anti-Americanism of yours is pathetic.>>Sam:this is not anti americanism.Lot of people were complaining,even in the
States some newspapers about NBC-s coverage of the games.That was the reason
I said about CBC.It did cover the olympics quite nicely,and true enough when
canadian athlethe won or paticipitadet the coverage was there,but it showd
also the winners,even if they werent canadians.
As for the Burton-Helms law,well that is another story.It was not only
against Canada,but the Eropians also complained.
Please admit maybe sometimes not evrithing is kosher in the States,as it is
also not kosher in Canada.
Well when ever I drink beer a chose Budwieser (my Son used to represent
them),and don't eat bacon,only ham.(Why is it if we go to an american restauran
t
we seae on the menu "canadian bacon"?
Thanks for your awnser:Andy.

At 03:09 PM 8/5/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:
>Very Interesting.....>The basic issues here are only somewhat related to having multiple>signs and having an official language.>>I am in favor of having bi-lingual signs. They used to have them in Quebec>at one time, until certain groups, went overboard. Moreover, the "French">speaking Canadians tried to FORCE the English speaking Canadians to>change their signs and LEARN only French. This was and is worng!>>That it why Quebec LOST manyt of the businesses to Ontario!!!!>>>In Finland, for example, people have signsin Swedish whereever there>are atl least five percent (5%) Sweedes. This shouuld be the way>it is in Romania, Slovakia, et al.>>The other issue of having English as an "offical" language is>quite different from Joes' (and others') understanding.>>It DOES NOT ANYWHERE or in any form PREVENT any language, store,>newspapaer, speaking, writing, singing, talking, etc. anywhere in the>USA [ THAT IS WHAT THE ROMANIANS an others want other to THINK!].>>It ONLY states that IF you are going to take any "official" government>communications (i.e.: drivers tests, schooling, etc.) that it shall>be conducted in the official language (English).>Unlike Canada (who capitulated to the French Canadians) has ALL>Canadian Federal goverment stuff bi-lingual. <---- this is non-sense>when applied thorughout Canada. It is acceptable if applied in Quebec>only! Anyhow....the basic theme here is to REDUCE the effort required>for the Feds to have multilingual voting, etc. There is a big>difference in having Street Signs bi-lingually vs. having ALL>signs in ONE language. There is both a size difference between>Romania and the USA but more importantly a CULTURAL difference!>>The USA will never take away someones' right to display and USE>their native or ethnic tongues....whether it is on the street,>on a store sign, etc.In fact opne does NOT even have to have an>English equivalent (unless you do not want English business).>>I hope that this makes it clear to all who care to know.
So, tell me Peter, do you remember having trouble being heard when you were
young? You CAPITALIZE way too many words. It's as if you're shouting at
your readers. It's not necessary (although your dominant tone is rather
intriguing). Capitalizing and shouting your thoughts will not make them any
more appealing. And, just out of curiosity, do you practice voicing your
ideas in front of a mirror before you type them?
Still not ready to answer my original question to you, eh?
Joe Szalai
"All personal, psychological, social, and institutionalized domination on
this earth can be traced back to its source: the phallic identities of men."
Andrea Dworkin

At 09:05 AM 8/6/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:
>Ehhh?>Peter Soltesz
I just pray to God that you weren't fantasizing about me when that little
ejaculation of yours hit the keyboard.
Joe "I shudder to think what some people do" Szalai

ESB:
> Gyula Horn is sure no economist in spite of his so-called degree in> "finances," from Rostov-on-the-Don. He knows next to nothing about> economics. And, yes, Bill Clinton is no economist either.
I'm really glad that you agree with me on this.
> Bill Clinton picked a very able team of> economists and financial experts and he leaves them alone to do their job.
That's very respectable. We all remember, that Clinton
admitted in his personal slogan, which was prepared for
him at the Bush-Clinton debates in 1992, that he is
'stupid' to the economics.
> Antall didn't have to know much economics but he had to listen to> the right advice and act accordingly. He didn't.
Yes, he did. Kadar Bela had a pretty good expert team
at the Ministry of International Connections, and he
also was supported by the ideas of the international
Blue Ribbon Committee. Antall trusted him and his team
to work out the economic strategies of his government.
> >> The ancien regime died not a political death but an economic death.> >You mean, the Soviet Empire in the Star Wars?> This is not worth answering.
Why not? According to my best knowledge, Gorbachev lost
the so called 'Star Wars' to Reagan.
Sz. Zoli

ESB:
> The Workers Councils in 1956 were very, very important.>> Eva Balogh>
Yeah! It was part of the freedom war! As they meant, it was
for freedom from the enforced Soviet model. (From the Soviet
imperialism, as we would say nowadays.) And the workers went
out to the streets and fought the Soviet tanks to achieve
these freedom. (Maybe, we should talk about Racz Sandor a
little bit more at this point.)
Sz. Zoli

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, JFerengi wrote:
> You have neatly sidestepped the the possibility that NPA never did> anything wrong
Which part of 'had been violating his voluntarily signed contract' do you
not understand?
>[...]> As an after thought, I recall that someone made a statement that NPA's> right to free speech had not been violated because he is able to continue> to post messages.
I guess you're paraphrasing me, but then have trouble with making up
what was meant. So here is the replay:
+ His right of expression has not been violated, [...]
+ What happened is that his assumed right to expressing himself by using
+ anl.gov got revoked
- --
Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/&gt;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBMgfOYcQ/4s87M5ohAQGwQAH+Mi1nzhK+ZGMXoGymB+708tGVNWjFM6i7
qB6m75sz5xKwryMHZH5ibwQ27ozVNkJ1f7gEYWkOBsgkmZ5QNiIn3A==
=8zsH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Zoltan Szekely wrote:
> Eva Balogh wrote:> > Antall didn't have to know much economics but he had to listen to> > the right advice and act accordingly. He didn't.> Yes, he did. Kadar Bela had a pretty good expert team> at the Ministry of International Connections,
You keep repeating this, without offering any proof whatsoever, as if
it were a truism. It is not.
I have provided some cursory analysis based on data in the public
domain to prove that the line followed by the Antall/Boross governments
led to Hungary losing ground in economic development/transformation when
compared to other Central-European ex-communist countries.
You completely ignored what I wrote and provided no refutation of it:
repeated assertion of the opposite does not count.
> and he> also was supported by the ideas of the international> Blue Ribbon Committee.
Again, as I pointed out, this is not a trump argument in economic circles.
> Antall trusted him and his team> to work out the economic strategies of his government.
And herein lies the problem: economic management in Hungary is supposed
to be vested in the Ministry of Finance. By promoting an alternative line
of thought by an organization that is not involved in economic regulation
anywhere near the same extent, Antall has caused friction within the
bureaucracy and rendered economic policy ineffective by fragmenting it.
Again, the results speak for themselves, regardless of how much you
are trying to pretend otherwise.
George Antony

Gyuri Antony wrote:
> > Yes, he did. Kadar Bela had a pretty good expert team> > at the Ministry of International Connections,> You keep repeating this, without offering any proof whatsoever, as if> it were a truism. It is not.
If you could prove the opposite, just do it. The center of economic
decisions during the reign of the Antall government was the Ministry
of International Connections.
> I have provided some cursory analysis based on data in the public> domain to prove that the line followed by the Antall/Boross governments> led to Hungary losing ground in economic development/transformation when> compared to other Central-European ex-communist countries.>> You completely ignored what I wrote and provided no refutation of it:> repeated assertion of the opposite does not count.
I apologise for this. I still keep digesting your data. I would
compose my response soon.
> > and he> > also was supported by the ideas of the international> > Blue Ribbon Committee.> Again, as I pointed out, this is not a trump argument in economic circles.
I never claimed this to be a 'trump argument'.
> And herein lies the problem: economic management in Hungary is supposed> to be vested in the Ministry of Finance.
Supposed to be by whom? Is it an economic dogma, or what?
> By promoting an alternative line> of thought by an organization that is not involved in economic regulation> anywhere near the same extent, Antall has caused friction within the> bureaucracy and rendered economic policy ineffective by fragmenting it.>> Again, the results speak for themselves, regardless of how much you> are trying to pretend otherwise.
The friction may be true. The kadarian bureaucracy (Janos this
time and not Bela) was not a big fan of the late Antall or the new
Hungarian democracy. That is one of Antall's political greatness,
that he exactly knew this, still he stood up and accepted the res-
ponsibility for the transition as Prime Minister of the Hungarian
Republic.
And yes, I agree. The results speak for themselves. In 1994 the
Hungarian economy was ready to grow. (Another missed chance for
Hungary in the 20th century...)
Sz. Zoli

At 07:13 PM 8/6/96 -0400, Zoli Szekely wrote, first quoting me:
ESB:
>> Bill Clinton picked a very able team of>> economists and financial experts and he leaves them alone to do their job.
Zoli Szekely:
>That's very respectable. We all remember, that Clinton>admitted in his personal slogan, which was prepared for>him at the Bush-Clinton debates in 1992, that he is>'stupid' to the economics.
I think Bill Clinton is a very smart fellow and not necessarily
because he went to Yale Law School, although it is very competitive. Bill
Clinton might not be an expert when it comes to economics but he is an
exceedingly intelligent man. He is quick and he is clever. Don't
underestimate him. He is every quick on his feet and I admire how quickly
and how well he can respond to questions. We can ask Bill Clinton whether he
took any economics or not as an undergraduate, but I would say the answer is
most likely yes. He was a political science major and it is customary to
take at least an introductory economics course when you major in political
science. Also, Bill Clinton has been preparing himself for the presidency
for a very long time and I can't imagine that he would have neglected to
take a couple of economics courses while at Georgetown or at Oxford.
>> Antall didn't have to know much economics but he had to listen to>> the right advice and act accordingly. He didn't.>Yes, he did. Kadar Bela had a pretty good expert team>at the Ministry of International Connections, and he>also was supported by the ideas of the international>Blue Ribbon Committee. Antall trusted him and his team>to work out the economic strategies of his government.
I don't think much of Bela Kadar and therefore I am not impressed
with the above. On the other hand, Antall, just like Horn, went through
quite a few ministers of finance and, after all, the minister of finance is
the man who is in charge of economic management in Hungary.
>> >> The ancien regime died not a political death but an economic death.>> >You mean, the Soviet Empire in the Star Wars?>> This is not worth answering.>Why not? According to my best knowledge, Gorbachev lost>the so called 'Star Wars' to Reagan.
I think this is a terrible oversimplification. It wasn't just that
the Soviet Union couldn't keep up with the United States in the military
sphere. The whole Soviet economy was dying a slow death. It was falling
behind in every possible way. It is possible that the difference between the
Soviet Union and the rest of the developed world became larger and larger
because of the computer age but whatever the case, the Soviet Union was
falling more and more behind the West. But that wasn't enough. There had to
be a man who was willing to try to reform the whole rotten structure. And
came Gorbachev. The system, however, was such that it couldn't be
"reformed." Once you opened the flood gates you were in trouble. And
Gorbachev opened the flood gates and suddenly the whole edifice collapsed.
The whole satellite system as well as the Soviet Union itself. Without
Gorbachev, I think, the Soviet system would have functioned for a while. I
don't know how much longer but it would have survived for a while.
Eva Balogh

Zoltan Szekely wrote:
> Gyuri Antony wrote:> >Zoltan Szekely wrote:> > > Yes, he did. Kadar Bela had a pretty good expert team> > > at the Ministry of International Connections,> > You keep repeating this, without offering any proof whatsoever, as if> > it were a truism. It is not.> If you could prove the opposite, just do it. The center of economic> decisions during the reign of the Antall government was the Ministry> of International Connections.
I have already proven that the economic advice that ANtall implemented
was at Hungary's disadvantage. By implication, the team that provided
that advice cannot be "pretty good".
Besides, you made the assertion the they were "pretty good", so the
onus is on you to prove it. But then so far you haven't proven one
single claim, merely repeated someone else's assertions.
And it has nothing to do with the quality of the team whether the Ministry
of International Relations was the centre of economic decisions, so do try
to cut the waffle an concentrate on relevant facts.
> > > and he> > > also was supported by the ideas of the international> > > Blue Ribbon Committee.> > Again, as I pointed out, this is not a trump argument in economic circles.> I never claimed this to be a 'trump argument'.
But keep using it as such: very ducklike.
> > And herein lies the problem: economic management in Hungary is supposed> > to be vested in the Ministry of Finance.> Supposed to be by whom? Is it an economic dogma, or what?
No, merely the way tasks are delineated in Hungarian public administration.
> > By promoting an alternative line> > of thought by an organization that is not involved in economic regulation> > anywhere near the same extent, Antall has caused friction within the> > bureaucracy and rendered economic policy ineffective by fragmenting it.> >> > Again, the results speak for themselves, regardless of how much you> > are trying to pretend otherwise.>> The friction may be true. The kadarian bureaucracy (Janos this> time and not Bela) was not a big fan of the late Antall or the new> Hungarian democracy.
Another unsubstantiated claim from you. Please refer to a survey where
it was found that the "kadarian [sic] bureaucracy was not a big fan of
the late Antall". Otherwise the readers will just ignore this latest
claim as worthless, particularly as only a small portion of the Kadarian
bureacracy would have known the then Comrade Museum Director Antall.
But this side argument that you introduce as a smokescreen has nothing
to do with the fact that if a PM is promoting rivalry within the
bureaucracy, by allowing the Ministry of International Connections to
compete with the Ministry of Finance for tasks of public administration
that is within the latter's charter, then the effectiveness of the
bureaucracy will be reduced.
> That is one of Antall's political greatness,> that he exactly knew this, still he stood up and accepted the res-> ponsibility for the transition as Prime Minister of the Hungarian> Republic.
This tear-jerking devotional piece has nothing to do with the issue,
i.e., Antall's economic competence or otherwise.
> And yes, I agree. The results speak for themselves. In 1994 the> Hungarian economy was ready to grow. (Another missed chance for> Hungary in the 20th century...)
You sound like a broken record: the same old recycled propaganda over
and over again, never anything new.
George Antony